marine technology society journal - the state of technology in 2008

8/11/2019 Marine Technology Society Journal - The State of Technology in 2008

1/124

THE INTERNATIONAL, INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIETY DEVOTED TO OCEAN AND MARINE ENGINEERING, SCIENCE, AND POLICY

VOLUME 42, NUMBER 1, SPRING 2008

The State of Technology in 2008


2/124

B O A R D O F D I R E C T O R S

PresidentBruce C. Gilman, P.E.Consultant

President-electElizabeth CorbinHawaii, DBEDT

Immediate Past PresidentJerry StreeterAntares Offshore

VPSection AffairsSandor KarpathyStress Subsea, Inc.

VPEducation and ResearchJill ZandeMATE Center

VPIndustry and TechnologyJerry C. WilsonFugro Pelagos, Inc.

VPPublicationsKarin Lynn

Treasurer and VPBudget and FinanceJerry BoatmanPlanning Systems, Inc.

VPGovernment and Public AffairsKaren KohanowichNURP

S E C T I O N S

Canadian MaritimeVacant

FloridaProf. Mark LutherUniversity of South Florida

Gulf CoastTed BennettNaval Oceanographic Office

Hampton RoadsLarry P. Atkinson

Old Dominion UniversityHawaiiWilliam A. Friedl

HoustonLisa MedeirosGeospace Offshore Cables

JapanProf. Toshitsugu SakouTokai University

KoreaDr. Seok Won HongMaritime & Ocean Engineering Research Inst.(MOERI/KORDI)

MontereyJill ZandeMATE

New EnglandChris JakobiakUMASS Dartmouth-SMAST

Puget SoundFritz StahrUniversity of Washington

San DiegoBarbara FletcherSSC-San Diego

Washington, DCBarry StameyNoblis

P R O F E S S I O N A L C O M M I T T E E S

INDUSTRY AND TECHNOLOGY

Buoy TechnologyWalter PaulWoods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Cables & ConnectorsVacant

Deepwater Field Development TechnologyBenton BaughRadoil, Inc.

DivingBrian AbbottNautilus Marine Group, Intl, LLC

Dynamic PositioningHoward ShattoShatto Engineering

Manned Underwater VehiclesWilliam KohnenSEAmagine Hydrospace Corporation

Marine Mineral ResourcesJohn C. WiltshireUniversity of Hawaii

Moorings

VacantOcean EnergyVacant

Oceanographic InstrumentationSam KellyCalifornia State Polytechnic University

Offshore StructuresPeter W. MarshallMHP Systems Engineering

Remote SensingHerb RipleyHyperspectral Imaging Limited

Remotely Operated VehiclesDrew MichelROV Technologies, Inc.

Ropes and Tension Members

Evan ZimmermanDelmar Systems

Seafloor EngineeringHerb HerrmannNFESC

Underwater ImagingDonna KocakGreen Sky Imaging, LLC

Unmanned Maritime VehiclesJustin ManleyBattelle

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

Marine ArchaeologyAyse Devrim AtauzTexas A&M University

Marine EducationSharon H. WalkerUniversity of Southern Mississippi

Marine Geodetic Information SystemsDave ZilkoskiNOAA

Marine MaterialsVacant

Ocean ExplorationVacant

Physical Oceanography/MeteorologyDr. Richard L. CroutNational Data Buoy Center

GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Marine Law and PolicyCapt. Craig McLeanNOAA

Marine SecurityDallas MeggittSound & Sea Technology

Ocean Economic PotentialJames MarshUniversity of Hawaii

Ocean PollutionVacant

S T U D E N T S E C T I O N S

Florida Atlantic UniversityCounselor: Douglas Briggs, Ph.D.

Florida Institute of TechnologyCounselor: Eric Thosteson, Ph.D.

Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCounselor: Alexandra Techet, Ph.D.

Texas A&M UniversityCollege StationCounselor: Robert Randall, Ph.D.

Texas A&M UniversityGalvestonCounselor: Victoria Jones, Ph.D.University of HawaiiCounselor: R. Cengiz Ertekin, Ph.D.

University of Southern MississippiStephen Howden, Ph.D.

H O N O R A R Y M E M B E R S

Robert B. Abel

Charles H. Bussmann

John C. Calhoun, Jr.

John P. Craven

Paul M. Fye

David S. Potter

Athelstan Spilhaus

E. C. Stephan

Allyn C. Vine

James H. Wakelin, Jr.

deceased

Marine Technology Society Officers


3/124

The Marine Technology Society Journal

(ISSN 0025-3324) is published quarterly (spring, summer,fall, and winter) by the Marine Technology Society, Inc.,

5565 Sterrett Place, Suite 108, Columbia, MD 21044.

MTS members can purchase the printed Journal for$25 domestic and $50 foreign. Non-members andlibrary subscriptions are $120 domestic and $135 foreign.Postage for periodicals is paid at Columbia, MD, andadditional mailing offices.

P O S T M A S T E R :Please send address changes to:

Marine Technology Society Journal

5565 Sterrett PlaceSuite 108Columbia, Maryland 21044

Copyright 2008 Marine Technology Society, Inc.

In This Issue

Volume 42, Number 1, Spring 2008

The State of Technology in 2008Guest Editors: Donna M. Kocak and Richard Crout

4A Message from the Guest EditorsDonna M. Kocak, Richard Crout

6Ocean Observing Systems: Science PlusIndustryA Formula for SuccessCommentary by Andrew M. Clark

9Ocean Energy in the U.S.: The State ofthe TechnologyCommentary by Dan G. White

15Remote SensingState of the ArtCommentary by Herbert Ripley

21New Ship Technology and DesignJohn F. Bash

Underwater Vehicles

262007 MTS Overview of Manned UnderwaterVehicle ActivityWilliam Kohnen

38

Trends in ROV DevelopmentSteve Cohan

44The Present State of Autonomous UnderwaterVehicle (AUV) Applications and TechnologiesJ.W. Nicholson, A.J. Healey

Front Cover:Artists conception of some of the technol-ogy advances described in this issue (see page 3).Image courtesy of Maritime Communication Serivces,

HARRIS Corporation.

Back Cover:Images showing (top to bottom): Florida

Atlantic Universitys concept of a Gulf Stream currentfarm, courtesy of the FAU Florida Center for ElectronicCommunications; Pressurized Rescue Module System(PRMS), courtesy of OceanWorks International, Inc.;Jaguar AUV, courtesy of Chris Linder, Woods HoleOceanographic Institution; Slocum Coastal Electric Glider,courtesy of Rutgers University Coastal Ocean Observa-

tion Lab; and concept design of Deep Flight II, courtesyof Hawkes Ocean Technologies.

MTS Journal design and layout:Michele A. Danoff, Graphics By Design

In SituSensing

52A Focus on Recent Developments and

Trends in Underwater ImagingDonna M. Kocak, Fraser R. Dalgleish,Frank M. Caimi, Yoav Y. Schechner

68Underwater Sonar: Plenty of New Twiststo an Old TaleCommentary by John R. Potter

75Using Fundamental Optical Property Sensorsfor Characterization of BiogeochemicalMaterials and Processes in Marine WatersCasey Moore

84Status of Sensors for Physical OceanographicMeasurementsMark E. Luther, Sherryl A. Gilbert,Mario Tamburri

UnderwaterCommunications

93High-Bandwidth Underwater

CommunicationsPhilip Lacovara

103Underwater Acoustic Communications andNetworking: Recent Advances and FutureChallengesMandar Chitre, Shiraz Shahabudeen,Milica Stojanovic


4/124

Marine Technology Society Journal2

The Marine Technology Society isa not-for-profit, international professional

society. Established in 1963, the Societys

mission is to promote the exchange of

information in ocean and marine engineer-

ing, technology, science, and policy.

Please send all correspondence to:

The Marine Technology Society5565 Sterrett Place, Suite 108

Columbia, MD 21044

(410) 884-5330 Tel.

(410) 884-9060 FAX

Publications: [email protected]

Membership: [email protected]

Programs: [email protected]

Director: [email protected]

Online: www.mtsociety.org

MEMBERSHIP INFORMATION

may be obtained by contacting the Marine

Technology Society. Benefits include: Free subscription to the onlineMarine

Technology Society Journal, with highly

reduced rates for the paper version Free subscription to the bimonthly news-

letter, Currents, covering events, business

news, science and technology, and

people in marine technology Member discounts on all MTS publications Reduced registration rates to all MTS and

MTS-sponsored conferences and workshops Member-only access to an expansive Job

Bank and Member Directory Reduced advertising rates in MTS

publications National recognition through our Awards

Program

Individual dues are $75 per year. Life

membership is available for a one-time

fee of $1,000. Patron, Student, Emeritus,

Institutional, Business, and Corporate

memberships are also available.

ADVERTISING

Advertising is accepted by theMarine Tech-

nology Society Journal. For more information

on MTS advertising and policy, please

contact the managing editor.

COPYRIGHT

Copyright 2008 by the Marine Technology

Society, Inc. Authorization to photocopy

items for internal or personal use, or the

internal or personal use of specific clients, is

granted by the Marine Technology Society,

provided that the base fee of $1.00 per copy,

plus .20 per page is paid directly to Copy-

right Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Dr.,Danvers, MA 01923.

For those organizations that have been

granted a photocopy license by CCC, a sepa-

rate system of payment has been arranged.

The fee code for users of the Transactional

Reporting Service is 0025-3324/89 $1.00 +

.20. Papers by U.S Government employees

are declared works of the U.S. Government

and are therefore in the public domain.

The Marine Technology Society cannot be held

responsible for the opinions given and the state-ments made in any of the articles published.

ABSTRACTS

Abstracts of MTS publications can be found

in both the electronic and printed versions

of Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts

(ASFA), published by Cambridge Scientific

Abstracts, 7200 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda,

MD 20814.

Electronic abstracts may be obtained through

Geobases Oceanbase, Fluidex, and Com-

pendex, which is published by Elsevier

Science, The Old Bakery, 111 Queen Road,

Norwich, NR1 3PL, United Kingdom.

Microfishe may be obtained through Con-

gressional Information Services, Inc., 4520

East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814.

CONTRIBUTORS

Contributors can obtain an information and

style sheet by contacting the managing editor.

Submissions that are relevant to the concerns

of the Society are welcome. All papers are sub-jected to a stringent review procedure directed

by the editor and the editorial board. The

Journalfocuses on technical material that may

not otherwise be available, and thus technical

papers and notes that have not been published

previously are given priority. General commen-

taries are also accepted and are subject to review

and approval by the editorial board.

Editorial BoardJustin ManleyEditorBattelle

Corey JaskolskiNational Geographic Society

Scott Kraus, Ph.D.New England Aquarium

James Lindholm, Ph.D.California State University, Monterey Bay

Dhugal Lindsay, Ph.D.Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology

Phil Nuytten, Ph.D.Nuytco Research, Ltd.

Terrence R. SchaffWoods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Stephanie ShowalterNational Sea Grant Law Center

Edith Widder, Ph.D.Ocean Research and Conservation Association

Jill ZandeMATE Center

EditorialKarin LynnVP of Publications

Justin ManleyEditor

Amy MorganteManaging Editor

AdministrationBruce Gilman, P.E.President

Richard LawsonExecutive Director

Susan M. BrantingCommunications Manager

Jeanne GloverMembership and Marketing Manager

Michael HallMember Programs Manager

Suzanne VoelkerAdministrator


5/124

3Spring 2008 Volume 42, Number 1

1. Ocean Observing Systems (Clark, page 6)

2. Ocean Energy (White, page 9)3. Remote Sensing (Ripley, page 15)

4. Surface Craft (Bash, page 21)

5. Manned Underwater Vehicles (Kohnen, page 26)

6. Remotely Operated Vehicles (Cohan, page 38)

7. Autonomous Underwater Vehicles

(Nicholson and Healey, page 44)

8. Underwater Optical Imaging (Kocak et al., page 52)

9. Acoustic Imaging (Potter, page 68)

10. Biogeochemical Sensing (Moore, page 75)11. Physical Ocean Sensing (Luther et al., page 84)

12. Optical Communications (Lacovara, page 93)

13. Acoustic Communications (Chitre et al., page 103)

On the Cover:Artists conception of some of the technology advances described in this issue. Image courtesy of Maritime Com-munication Services, HARRIS Corporation.


6/124


A Message from the Guest Editors

Dear Readers,

Since the lastMTS JournalState of Technology update in 2005, many advances have been made spanning the

spectrum of our society. Our goal in this issue is to assemble leading technologists and researchers in their fields to

present these innovations in a single, coffee-table issue. An overview of the topics, authors and their papers is pre-

sented here.

For the past decade, in Journal articles and special issues for which he has served as Guest Editor, Past MTS

President Andrew Clark has provided detailed accounting of the state of the art in ocean observing systems. In this

commentary, he updates the reader on recent advances, progress and lack thereof in this rapidly emerging fieldone

that encompasses most if not all the technologies reported throughout this issue.

In todays economy, empowered by the movement to go green and become less reliant on imported and non-

renewable fuel sources, the prospect of harnessing sustainable energy from the oceans is an alluring one. In the next

commentary, Daniel White, Marine Technology Fellow and founder/organizer of the Energy Ocean Conference,

discusses recent policies and practices that govern this nascent stage of ocean energy technology. Although the future

of this technology is not yet clear, legislation appears to be opening the door for its development.

Continuing with this global perspective, our next commentary features the state of technology in remote sens-

ing. Herbert Ripley, Fellow of the Remote Sensing and Photogrammetry Society and Chair of the MTS Committee

on Remote Sensing, discusses recent changes that have enhanced sensor system capabilities used to capture both theinner and outer dimensions of our oceans. He also provides a brief overview of the technologys history and offers the

reader a listing of satellite and airborne systems in use today.

Our first paper begins at the oceans surface where we find new (and sometimes not so traditionally appearing)

advances in surface craft. John Bash describes how specific economic, environmental, security, safety, geopolitical,

and mission considerations are driving the design of todays research, commercial and military surface vessels. Il-

lustrations of several cutting-edge vessels are shown and a preview is given of alternate energy systems that we can

look for in future developments.

The next three papers take us beneath the surface to describe new technologies in manned, remotely operated

and autonomous underwater vehicles (ROVs and AUVs). In the first of these papers, William Kohnen, Chair of the

MTS Manned Underwater Vehicles Committee, provides a listing and status update of the most active, non-military,manned submersibles in operation around the world today. In the next paper, Steve Cohan describes trends in ROV

developmentfocusing on the capabilities of digital video, model-based control techniques for operations, and so-

phisticated remote diagnostic capabilities. Finally, in our third paper, John Nicholson and Anthony Healey review the

state of the art of AUV technology. These authors key-in on emerging design features and sensor technologies that are

most critical in advancing the state of the art.

continued on page 5


7/124


Having reached the depths of the ocean, the next set of papers explores recent advances in a number of in situsensing

technologies. First, leading researchers, including Fraser Dalgleish, Frank Caimi and Yoav Schechner, focus on recent

advances in underwater optical imaging. They look at a number of methods for seeing 2-D and 3-D representations

of the environment and review techniques researchers are now using to extend in-water optical vision capability. Next,

John Potter reviews some of the new developments emerging in underwater acoustic imaging that are helping to listen

through the clutter in both deep and shallow waters. The third paper in this series sniffs out what is new in biogeo-

chemical sensing. Casey Moore provides a review of the state of the art in sensors and technologies that are now being

adopted in ocean exploration and observation. Lastly, the fourth paper gives us a feel for in situsensing of physical

ocean parameters. In this paper, Mark Luther, Sherryl Gilbert and Mario Tamburri discuss recent activity and technolo-

gies emerging from the Alliance for Coastal Technologies.

Finally, having reviewed the advances in technologies required to gather information from the oceans depths, the

next two papers provide a thorough review of some optical and acoustic communications methods employed to transmit

this information to the user. In the first paper, Philip Lacovara discusses advances in free-space optics and includes a

comparison of this technology to acoustics, radio frequency electromagnetic waves, and fiber optics technologies. In the

second paper, Mandar Chitre, Shiraz Shahabudeen and Milica Stojanovic present a complete review of recent develop-

ments in acoustic communications and networking. Although both of these communications methods are ultimately

limited by the physics of their environment, they are both likely to progress even further in the coming years as enabling

technologies move forward.

We hope you will enjoy reading this as much as we have enjoyed putting this issue together for you!

Sincerely,

Donna M. Kocak, Chair of the MTS Underwater Imaging Committee

Richard Crout, Chair of the MTS Physical Oceanography/Meteorology Committee


8/124


T he state of technology enabling oceanobserving systems has been reportedin special issues of this Journal (Winter

1999, Fall 2003) in articles that provided

inventories of existing observatories and

the technologies they employ to collect and

transmit data back to users on shore. While

there may not be many new technological

breakthroughs occurring since that most

recent publication on which to report,

there have nonetheless been continued in-

cremental improvements to and maturation

of some of the tools and techniques worth

noting here. The need for new long-term

unattended, in situ sensors, particularly

those that monitor chemical and biological

processes, is perennially identified as critical

to the viability of ocean observing systems.

Appearing elsewhere in this issue (Moore,

Luther et al.) are other articles describing

some of the recent advances in this area.Another area vital to ocean observing that

has benefited from continued use in the

A U T H O RAndrew M. Clark

MTS Fellow and Past President

C O M M E N T A R Y

field and resulting maturation is that of un-

manned gliders as described by Nicholson

and Healey in this issue. Notwithstandinga lack of major advances in the technology

that enables ocean observing systems, there

have been some notable changes on which

to report since the lastJournalissue devoted

to this subject.

The ocean observing efforts previously

described are still underway, so rather than

repeat an inventory of individual observa-

tories, this article attempts to update the

reader on some of the major ocean ob-

serving initiatives in the U.S. and abroad.

Perhaps not surprising, in each case a

common theme that has either fostered

or encumbered progress has been funding

(or the lack thereof)particularly from

government sources. Another recurring

thread that emerges among these various

initiatives, and one seen by some as a po-

tential means to help mitigate the financial

obstacle, is the need for an increased role

in ocean observing by the international

industrial sector.

In the U.S. there are two nationalocean observing initiatives backed by the

federal government, the Integrated Ocean

Observing System (IOOS) and the Ocean

Observatories Initiative (OOI). The IOOS,

a multi-agency undertaking, strives tomaximize the usefulness and effectiveness

of the data generated by its member agen-

cies and is, therefore, oriented toward the

development of data products, services

and operations. The OOI, a National Sci-

ence Foundation (NSF) effort, is oriented

toward research and providing the instru-

ments necessary to answer effectively the

most important research questions facing

society. In recognition of its criticality to

success, a symposium titled IOOS and

OOI; The Role of Industry was convened

by NSF in 2007 in an attempt to create an

environment conducive to establishing this

vital public-private partnership.

The OOI is a major infrastructure ef-

fort to deploy long-term coastal, regional

and global ocean observatories. A detailed

accounting of the goals and objectives for

OOI was described in the referenced 2003

MTS Journalissue (Volume 37, Number

3). At that time, a request on the order of

$300 million had been made to fund fourmajor components: a cabled regional scale

observatory, a coastal and a global scale

Ocean Observing Systems:Science Plus IndustryA Formula for Success

FIGURE 1

Technips Extended Draft Platform (EDP) offered for use in the OOI. Courtesy of John Orcutt, Scripps Oceanographic Institution.

(http://ceoa.ucsd.edu/docs/2007-CEOA-Rpt.pdf)


9/124


observatory, and the cyberinfrastructure

that would be necessary to tie them all

together. The OOI program office had

then been established at the Joint Oceano-

graphic Institutions (JOI) to administer the

funds and oversee its development (www.

oceanleadership.org/ocean_observing). In

2007, a competitive process was conducted

to fund several implementing organiza-tions, one to head the development of

each of the major components: University

of Washington was awarded the contract

to lead the regional observatories effort,

University of California San Diego the

cyberinfrastructure, and the coastal and

global observatories were rolled into one

contract that was awarded to Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institution.

Industrys role in managing the OOI

was established early on. Only non-profit

education or research institutions wereeligible to bid on these contracts to lead

the implementing organizations. In spite of

this limitation, there have been some early

signs of industrys willingness to participate,

contributing their resources and expertise

and receiving in return the opportunity to

acquire new knowledge with the ultimate

intent of achieving a competitive advantage

in the marketplace. One such example is the

extended draft platform (EDP, see Figure 1)

being developed by Technip of France for

use in the exploration and production of

offshore oil. In preliminary designs for the

OOI, Technip offered, upon completion of

its initial deployment and testing, to turn

their scale EDP platform over to the OOI

for use within the global scale ocean observ-

ing system. Not only would this represent

a large-scale and truly transformative tool

benefiting the NSF initiative, its further

utilization by OOI would provide Technip

with additional operational, seakeeping and

performance data. Unfortunately, recentdescoping efforts required to match budget

constraints led to the elimination of the

Mid-Atlantic site, where the EDP would

have been deployed.

In terms of funding, OOI has fared

better than other major ocean observing

initiatives but is still not out of the woods.

All planning efforts conducted thus far

have required using NSFs limited research

dollars. The OOI was listed as a new start

in 2007, with a $331 million spending pro-

file; however, the FY09 budget eliminated

out-year funding for the OOI. A successful

Preliminary Design Review was completed

in late 2007 but allocation of funds for

actual construction is pending the results

of a Final Design Review to be completedin late 2008.

The other major U.S. initiative reported

on in the 2003 MTS Journal issue de-

voted to Ocean Observing Systems was the

IOOS. Unlike the research focused OOI,

IOOS represents the effort to bring together

the data and products generated by indi-

vidual observatories and observing efforts

in a synergistic manner that is accessible to

individual users. Another salient difference

between them is that while OOI is owned

by a single federal agency, IOOS is a col-laborative effort among more than a dozen

agencies, not just to seek common ground

among themselves, but in the process to

also engage state and local governments,

universities and the private sector, including

industry. Ocean.US, staffed by scientists,

engineers and managers from government,

academia and industry was established to

serve as a central planning office for IOOS

but does not administer funds as does the

OOI program office (www.ocean.us). This

daunting task, coupled with federal funding

at levels only fractional to what has been

determined necessary, have conspired to set

the pace of progress for IOOS. However,

since that previous Journal issue, some

progress is now underway.

The National Oceanic and Atmos-

pheric Administration (NOAA) was des-

ignated to serve as the lead federal agency

and has subsequently stood up an internal

IOOS program office focused upon execu-

tion. On the funding front, IOOS made

it into the Presidents request for the first

time in FY 2008 and, though Congress

was nearly twice as generous (see Table 1),

these levels of funding still fall an order of

magnitude short of the need projected by

the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy as

reported in the 2003Journalspecial issue.

The FY 2009 Congressional appropriationwill not be known until fall 2008, with

another potential delay due to a change in

administration, regardless of the outcome

of the presidential election.

As with OOI, there have been some

successful examples of IOOS partnering

with industry. One that may represent a

model for mitigating some of the potential

financial strain while benefiting end users

is cited here. Earlier this year, NOAA and

Shell Oil Company signed a Collaborative

Agreement to enhance meteorological andoceanographic observations in the Gulf of

Mexico. In this partnership, Shell will pur-

chase and install instrumentation on five

off-shore platforms and three near-shore

stations. In turn, NOAA will provide tech-

nical expertise in High Frequency Radar

(HFR), data formatting, data distribution,

data quality assurance and control. This

partnership is envisioned as a long-term

collaboration for the collection, process-

ing and distribution of atmospheric and

oceanographic data as part of the ongoing

development of the U.S. IOOS. The goal

of this partnership is to advance observa-

tional quantity, quality and diversity to

meet shared interests in improving opera-

tional forecasts and understanding of the

Gulf of Mexico environment.

Together, IOOS and OOI represent

the United States contribution to the

international Global Ocean Observing

System (GOOS), which is, in turn, the

$ Millions FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09

President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 21

Requests

Congress 6 5 13 16.26 36 42.4 33.8 21.4 27.2. ?

Appropriates

TABLE 1

Federal Funding Profile for IOOS. Courtesy of the Natinoal Federation of Regional Associations (www.usnfra.org).


10/124


oceanic component of the Global Earth

Observation System of Systems (GEOSS).

Also reported upon in the previousJournal

issue were a number of international ocean

observing activities in Asia and Europe.

One was a component of MedGOOS (the

Mediterranean contribution to GOOS)

and the others NEAR-GOOS (North-East

Asia Regional). These coalitions of memberinstitutions might be likened to the Regional

Associations that make up the U.S. IOOS.

A recent development worthy of noting

in this update is the launch of a pan-Eu-

ropean seafloor observatory initiative, the

European Multidisciplinary Seafloor Ob-

servatories research infrastructure (EMSO)

(www.esonet-emso.org). As with the U.S.

IOOS, EMSO intends to tie together exist-

ing independent observatories into an inte-

grated system. A network of observatories

around Europe would undoubtedly lead tounprecedented scientific advances in knowl-

edge of submarine geology, the ecosystem

and the aquatic environment. Such an op-

erational network could also play a key role

in the assessment and monitoring of geo-

hazards, as the coasts off southern Europe

comprise many of Earths most seismogenic

zones. Real-time recording and reporting

afforded by cabled observatories facilitate

rapid reaction to episodic events, such as

earthquakes and tsunami, as suggested by

UNESCO-IOC in the recommendations

of the Intergovernmental Coordination

Group for the Tsunami Early Warning

System in the North Eastern Atlantic, the

Mediterranean and Connected Seas (ICG/

NEAMTWS) launched at its 1st Session

held in Rome (November, 2005).

As a subset of the international GE-

OSS initiative, EMSO will coordinate

closely with other similar efforts such as

the French-led European Seas Observatory

Network of Excellence (ESONET-NoE).Projected cost estimates for implementing

EMSO and ESONET-NoE, including

conducting cable route surveys, procuring

cables and junction boxes and deploying

them, are on the order of $500 million, in

line with the USCOP estimate for imple-

menting the U.S. IOOS. Essential to the

EMSO concept is a synergic collaboration

between the academic community and

industry. Mutually beneficial consortia are

being actively sought with both large indus-

trial partners as well as with SMEs (Small

and Medium-sized Enterprises).

The examples of industry partnerships

cited in this article for the U.S. ocean ob-

serving initiatives were both related to the

offshore oil and gas industry. It stands toreason that the offshore energy industry also

represents fertile ground for privatepublic

partnership overseas. CSnet, International is

an SME, established recently to deploy and

operate international seafloor networks that

can both serve the scientific community as

well as provide a communication backbone

to support the enterprise of offshore hydro-

carbon exploration and production. In the

Shell Oil Co.IOOS partnership, sensor

packages will be deployed on platforms that

are installed and operating offshore. Whilethis program is aimed at collecting and

reporting real-time current and environ-

mental data during drilling and production

operations, a recent U.S. Marine Minerals

Service (MMS) Notice To Lesees (NTL)

also calls for the collection of year-long

environmental data records from certain

offshore leases prior to commencement of

some operations. European Union require-

ments are no less rigorous, thus creating

a potential market: commercially oper-

ated offshore communication backbones

(OCBs) that can both be utilized by the

scientific community while supporting the

offshore energy enterprise from pre-explo-

ration environmental base-lining through

exploration, drilling, production and finallydecommissioning. CSnet, International

is initially focusing on sites off Africa, the

Middle East and Europe where the com-

bination of offshore hydrocarbons and

scientific interests coincide. In regions such

as the eastern Mediterranean, there is also

the very immediate advantage of an OCB

serving as a geo-hazard-tsunami early warn-

ing network, thereby representing another

potential publicprivate partnership.

It would appear that it has been rec-

ognized universally, both in the U.S. andabroad, that success of these major and

technology-intensive ocean observing sys-

tems will require true partnering between

the research and industrial communities.

Forums like the symposium sponsored

last year by NSF will be essential to help

identify these opportunities and to bring

potential partners together.

FIGURE 2

Conceptual CSnet Environmental Monitoring Network and Offshore Communication Backbone for Industryand Science


11/124


WIntroduction orldwide, ocean energy is emerg-

ing as a viable source of electricity, water

and fuel (hydrogen). However, for the

U.S. this could be years away. Most groups

agree that utility-scale electricity-producing

devices, such as wave energy conversion

(WEC), instream tidal flow energy con-version (TISECS), ocean thermal energy

conversion (OTEC), and offshore wind,

will be providing power to the grid by 2010

and beyond. Offshore wind is included as

an ocean renewable because it falls within

the same regulations and permitting proc-

esses as other forms of ocean energy, and

may lend itself to hybrid systems (e.g.

wind/tidal, wind/wave, etc.).

This commentary will focus on the

current state of ocean energy and the fac-

tors driving the implementation of the

technology, while touching on a few of the

more promising technology developments

likely to be connected to the grid in the

foreseeable future.

The New Energy BillOn December 19, 2007, President

Bush signed into law the Energy Independ-

ence and Security Act of 2007, which fo-

cuses primarily on fuel economy standards.

Unfortunately it removed all renewableenergy tax incentives and a four-year exten-

sion of tax credits for renewable electricity

projects, representing a cost of $6.6 billion

over the next decade and a setback for

ocean energy.

That said, the new energy act does call

for accelerated research and development of

renewable energy technologies, although all

A U T H O RDan G. White

President, Technology Systems Corporation

MTS Fellow

C O M M E N T A R Y

the provisions are subject to congressional

appropriations of funds.

President Bush did approve an omnibusappropriations act on December 26, 2007,

that provides a 17% increase in funds for

the Department of Energys (DOE) Office

of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

(EERE). The new act appropriates over

$1.7 billion for EERE. The appropriations

act does not provide a breakdown of funds

by program, but mandates that any change

in program implementation be submitted

for congressional approval.

Part of the Act includes the Marine

and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy

Research and Development Act, which

includes wave, tidal, current and OTEC,

as well as energy produced from flowing

rivers, lakes, streams and manmade chan-

nels. Traditional hydropower generated by

dams, diversionary structures or impounds

are excluded. The Act authorizes an ap-

propriation of $50 million to the Secretary

of Energy for each of the fiscal years from

2008 to 2012. The money is intended tosupport two major initiatives: Establishment of a research and develop-

ment program within DOE, in consult-

tion with the Department of the Interior

(DOI) and the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Provision of grants to universities for

the establishment of National Marine

Renewable Energy Research, Develo-

ment, and Demonstration Centers

that will advance research and develo-

ment into the commercial application

of marine renewable energy.

At the time of this writing, the U.S.

House of Representatives passed HR 5351

that could shift $18 billion in tax breaks

from major oil companies to alternative and

renewable energy projects and conservation

and energy efficiency programs.

Ocean Energy in the U.S.:The State of the Technology

FIGURE 1

The Pelamis WEC device, courtesy of Pelamis Wave Power


12/124


Ocean EnergyWhat TookSo Long?

While the rest of the world has been

busy developing ocean renewables, the

U.S. has been moving along at a painfully

slow pace because the U.S. government, in

particular the U.S. Department of Energy

(DOE), has not formally recognized ocean

energy as a source of poweruntil now.

Unlike wind energy, which faced this battle

some 20 years ago, ocean renewables have

just begun the long path to acceptance.

In a report published in March of

2007 by the ABS Energy Research (www.

researchandmarkets.com), 2006 was a year

in which the development of ocean energy

made a leap forward. The report looked at

the market development and provided a

comprehensive overview of ocean energy

looking at the advantages and disadvantag-es of tidal, wave, ocean and marine energy.

According to the report, wave and tidal

energy together represent a global market

of US$250 million, with US$180 million

earned in the U.K. While committed tidal

projects are primarily off the East Asian

Pacific coasts of Korea and China, the bulk

of wave energy projects are being developed

in Europe. The U.K and Portugal are the

countries with the most current activity.

Other key findings were that between

2004 and 2008 it was estimated that theworld capital expenditure (CAPEX) on

wave energy will be US$140 million, with

almost 50% of this in the U.K. In the same

period, it has been estimated that the world

CAPEX on tidal projects will be around

US$110 million, with almost 90% of this

being related to the U.K. market.

In the last year, there has been an ad-

vance in the progress of tidal energy, with

one barrage already under construction on

the Korean coast, the 254 MW Shihwa

tidal power plant, and a contract agreedfor a second 300 MW tidal lagoon power

plant in China. Both are larger than the

barrage at La Rance in France, presently

the largest in the world.

Several events have helped ocean re-

newables move forward: Commitments by European and

Canadian governments to generate

10% of electricity from renewable

sources by 2010 have spurred significant

growth in the renewable energy sector. Demand for green energy sources has

increased due to the desire for secure

energy supplies and the use of renewables

as a hedge against volatile fuel prices. Use of renewable energy has increased

because of lower production costs and an increasing awareness about global

warming. Legislated Renewable Portfolio Standards

(RPS) will help to establish ocean energy

in the U.S. An RPS is a state policy that

requires electricity providers to obtain a

minimum percentage of their power

from renewable energy resources by

a certain date. Currently there are 20 or

more states that have RPS policies in

place. Together these states account for

more than 52% of the electricity sales in the United States. Organizations have lobbied for ocean

renewables to be recognized in the

recent U.S. energy bill, allowing the

U.S. Department of Energy to establish

a formal ocean energy program in 2008. The Electric Power Research Institute

(EPRI) has completed several studies

on the wave and tidal resource in the

U.S., quantifying the potential to meet

a significant portion of the nations

demand. Conferences, such as EnergyOcean

(www.EnergyOcean.com), have

brought technologists together with

government agencies, financial instit-

tions, environmentalists and power

companies. Renewables have moved into the

mainstream, creating greater financing

opportunities from investment banks. Several U.S. developers have had

successes (and failures) with demonstration projects, proving the tech-

nologies, power-generating capabilities

and the need for sound ocean engineer-

ing to resist the oceans relentless attack

on equipment put in its path.

At the end of 2007, the U.S. Secretary

of the Interior released the Final Program-

matic Environmental Impact Statement

(FPEIS) for the Outer Continental Shelf

(OCS) Alternative Energy and Alternate

Use (AEAU) Program and announced

an interim policy for authorization of the

installation off offshore data collection and

technology testing in federal waters.

Now with some MMS and FERC in

some form of agreement on how to imple-

ment these ocean energy technologies off-shore, things appear to be moving ahead.

As of February 4, 2008, 47 permits

had been issued for ocean wave and tidal

projects and 41 were pending. In-river per-

mits totaled 40 with 55 more pending.

UtilitiesThe MissingPiece to the Puzzle

Now with utilities like Pacific Gas &

Electric (PG&E) actively looking at sitesand technologies for wave and tidal energy,

the puzzle is finally coming together. With

utilities looking to meet the RPS policies,

renewables are being pushed to the fore-

front. In states such as Alaska, California,

Hawaii and Oregon, ocean energy is a

prime consideration.

The Governor of Florida wants the

state to produce 20% of its power through

renewable energy, which is currently at 2%.

The Governor of Hawaii has set its goal at

70% by 2030. Oregon has established theOregon Wave Energy Trust, a nonprofit

association that expects to receive funds

of $4.2 million over the next two years to

reach its goal of installing 500 MW of com-

mercial wave energy projects by 2025.

FIGURE 2

Seagen, courtesy of Marine Current Turbines (MCT)


13/124


PG&E provides energy to nearly 1 in

20 people in the U.S. with 5.2 million

electric and 4.2 million gas customer ac-

counts. PG&E is also funding studies and

projects that will help it reach its goals

for the inclusion of ocean energy. Today,

PG&E is working towards and expects

ocean energy to begin contributing power

to the grid post-2010.Pacific Gas and Electric has applied for

permits to operate two California wave

energy sites off the coast of Mendicino and

Humboldt counties. PG&E also signed a

long-term, 2 MW commercial wave energy

purchasing agreement (PPA) with Finavera

Renewables Inc. Finavera is developing the

Humboldt County Offshore Wave Energy

Plant about 2.5 miles off the Northern

California coast, and is expected to begin

generating electricity in 2012. The agree-

ment calls for 3,854 MWhrs of electricityto be delivered annually to PG&E over the

term of the contract.

The Sonoma County Water Agency in

California has applied for a permit from

FERC for exclusive rights to study and de-

velop wave energy technology along the entire

41-mile-long coastline of the county and out

12 miles. The permit gives it three years to

study and test technologies, after which it can

apply for an operating license.

Florida Power & Light Co. (subsidiary

of FPL Group) will issue an RFP for renew-

ables, including ocean energy. Proposals are

due in June. FPL provides power to 4.5

million Floridians and has projects in 25

states. It has invested heavily in renewables,

including solar and wind.

Many U.S. utilities have been educated

about bringing on renewables to the gridthrough land-based wind power. Offshore

wind, unbelievable as it seems, looks like

it will not be the first ocean renewable

to come online in the U.S. In fact, there

is already a tidal system demonstration

project installed in the East River con-

nected to the grid.

The Cost of Electricity (CoE)Over two decades ago, as wind technol-

ogy was beginning its emergence into the

commercial marketplace, the Cost of Elec-

tricity (CoE) was in excess of 20 cents/kWhr

(in 2006 dollars). Over 75,000 MW of wind

has now been installed worldwide and the

technology has experienced an 82% learning

curve (i.e., the cost is reduced by 18% for each

doubling of cumulative installed capacity)

and the CoE is about 6 cents/kWhr (in 2006

dollars with no incentives) for an average 30%

capacity factor plant.

According to experts like EPRI and

others, it is generally believed that the

leveled cost of electricity for ocean energy

devices needs to be less than 7 cents/KWh

and closer to 5 cents/KWh to be feasible.

Initially, wave and tidal systems may pro-

duce electricity at costs of 13 cents/KWh

or higher until the development costs are

spread over many units.EPRI looked at areas around San

Francisco, California, that could support

both a tidal and a wave energy project. By

building either of these plants in the area,

EPRI determined that the cost of electricity

(CoE) would be in the range of 5-9 cents/

kWh for tidal power and 8-16 cents/kWh

for wave power.

How Much Do They Costto Build?

There are a few data points on the

costs of these systems. A comparison of

two different companies using different

tidal power technologies shows they cor-

respond almost identically in the cost per

MW installed: The tidal project off Pembrokeshire,

South Wales, will consists of eight MW

Lunar Energy turbines, estimated to cost

of about $20 million. Thats about $2.5

million per MW installed. Verdant Power is targeting costs around

$2,500 per kW installed or $2.5 million

per MW for future projects. Oceanlinx (Australia) has signed an

agreement to provide 2.7 MW of power

to Maui Electric Company from 2-3

floating wave energy platforms. The

cost of the project was estimated at

$20 million.

The global market for renewables

reached $38 billion in 2006, 25% higher

than 2005. The market for ocean renewa-bles will increase dramatically as utilities are

convinced to buy this type of power.

Commercial WEC systems will range

from 150 kW to 1 MW each (150-500kW

for buoy types) and installed in large off-

shore areas designated as wave farms.

To put this into perspective, the total

U.S. wave resource (according to EPRI) is

FIGURE 3

PowerBuoy, courtesy of Ocean Power Technologies (OPT)


14/124


2,100 TWh/yr. The total U.S. consump-

tion of electricity is about 4,000 TWh/yr.

Assuming that only 1/4 of this wave re-

source could be harnessed at about 50%

efficiency (262 TWh/yr) of wave power, it

could still provide about 6.5% of the na-

tional requirement. Harnessing this energy

would take at least 60,000-500 kW WEC

devicesthus creating a very large marketfor WEC systems in the U.S. alone.

With regard to tidal river and ocean

currents, EPRI estimates they could pro-

vide about 125 TWh per year in the U.S.

Overall, the potential wave and tidal re-

source for installed wave and tidal projects

in the U.S. could support $172 billion in

projects over the next 15-20 years.

Regarding OTEC, there have been some

estimates of the cost of a 10 MW plant rang-

ing from about $30 to $50 million.

The Wave Hub ConceptA concept known as a Wave Hub has

been proposed in several areas around

the world. It is a streamlined way to get

developers pilot projects tested and on

the grid.

A wave hub can be built by a utility,

allowing several developers to connect and

provide electricity while proving the tech-

nology to the utility. If the utility feels thatthe technology is sound and will provide re-

liable power, the developer may be allowed

to add full-scale systems in the form of a

wave farm. There can be several developers

and wave farms attached to a single hub.

This concept is likely to work best in the

U.S., as the utility will have streamlined the

process to get wave power to the grid.

The Pacific Northwest Generating Co-

operative (PNGC Power) plans to develop

the Reedsport wave park in Douglas County,

Oregon, teaming with Ocean Power Tech-nologies (OPT). Initially, the power gener-

ated will be 2 MW, but FERC has granted

OPT a preliminary permit for up to a 50

MW connection. PNGC Power will provide

expertise regarding grid connection and in

meeting the standards of the Bonneville

Power Administration, which operates much

of the regions power system.

PG&E applied for permits to operate

two California wave energy sites off the

coast of Mendicino and Humboldt counties

in 2007. The hubs, called Wave Connect,

would allow multiple WEC device manu-

facturers to demonstrate their systems at a

common site. If fully developed, each site

could provide up to 40 MW of electricity.

The European Marine Energy Center(EMEC), located in the Orkney Isles in

Northern Scotland, is grid connected. This

is a test facility, which allows developers

to test WEC devices in real conditions.

This concept provides an easy way for a

developer to test his WEC and prove it to

the industry while providing power to the

region. EMEC has also established tidal

sites for testing tidal energy devices.

A large-scale Wave Hub is underway

off the Southwest of England and could

generate 76 million a year for the regionaleconomy. It would create at least 170 jobs

and possibly hundreds more by creating

a new wave power industry in Southwest

England. The Wave Hub could generate

enough electricity for 7,500 homes, which

would support Southwest Englands target

for generating 15% of the regions power

from renewable sources by 2010. Four

companies have been chosen for instal-

lations at the hub that are sufficiently

advanced with their devices and have the

resources to deliver their projects, including

Pelamis, PowerBuoy and Oceanlinxs Oscil-

lating Water Column (OWC) device.

U.S. Centers of Excellenceand R&D

The American Marine Energy Center,

proposed to be established in the next few

years, is located at a research/demonstration

site in Newport, Lincoln County, Oregon,

where land-based facilities would be inte-grated with the ongoing activities at the

Oregon State University (OSU) Hatfield

Marine Science Center (HMSC). The main

elements of the facility would be similar

to that at EMEC. The National Center

will advance wave energy developments

through a number of initiatives, such as

testing existing ocean energy extraction

technologies, research and development of

advanced systems, investigation of reliable

integration with the utility grid and inter-

mittency issues and development of wave

energy power measurement standards.

The Oregon Wave Energy Trust, which

received its first $1million of a promised

$4.2 million over the next two years, plans

to study the potential ecological effects ofwave energy developments and will work

with existing ocean users to come up with

ways to best share Oregons wave resource.

Six wave energy projects have applied for

permits off of Oregons coast so far.

The Advanced Technology Manufac-

turing Center at the University of Massa-

chusetts, Dartmouth, will host the Marine

Renewable Energy Consortium aimed at

organizing a network of technologists, entre-

preneurs, and investors around ocean wave,

tidal, current, and wind energy projects.Last year, Florida Atlantic Univer-

sity was awarded $5million to establish

a Center of Excellence in Ocean Energy

Technology. Utilizing the Navys offshore

test range, FAU, in partnership with

academia, industry and government, will

foster the research and development of

cutting-edge ocean energy technologies

FIGURE 4

FAUs concept of a Gulf Stream current farm.

Courtesy of the FAU Florida Center for Electronic

Communications


15/124


including ocean current, thermal, wave and

tidal-based energy.

In 2007, the Rockland, Maine, Ocean

Energy Institute was established. The

Institute has welcomed a limited number

of researchers and is developing a re-

search agenda around the most promising

technologies. Eventually the institution

may include on-site housing for visitingresearchers, large meeting spaces for con-

ferences, and a demonstration tidal power

plant, and may function as a grant-making

and investment body supporting a variety

of ocean energy projects.

The State of the TechnologyInstallation of ocean energy systems in

the U.S. wont necessarily involve devices

built by U.S. companies. Most of the de-

velopment work on WEC and instream

(tidal and current) devices has been ac-

complished in Europe and Australia, and

these companies are actively marketing

their systems in the U.S.

Several companies have developed

successful designs that have been proven

in demonstration projects. The interesting

thing here is that they all take somewhat

different approaches to harnessing energy

from the ocean.

The following are intended as examplesof the more significant projects planned,

underway or completed in the U.S.

Wave PowerThere are four basic types of wave

energy devices and a few systems that are

proven to be utility or near-utility-scale

devices: Point Absorber: Ocean Power Tech-

nologies (OPT) PowerBuoy; Finavera

Renewables AquaBuOY; Wavebob

Limiteds Wavebob Attenuator: Pelamis Wave Powers

(PWP) Pelamis Oscillating Water Column (OWC):

Oceanlinxs OWC; Wavegens Limpet Overtopping: Wave Dragon Ltd.s

Wave Dragon

All of these technologies offer advan-

tages and are considered viable ways to

harness wave energy. In the U.S., several of

the devices mentioned are in use or planned

for installation off U.S. coastlines.

According to a DOE-funded study,

there are 150,000 sites for wave energy

development in the U.S.

Currently, there only a few utility-scale

WEC devices installed off U.S. coastlines.

Finavera Renewables Ocean Energy, Ltd.,until very recently, had an AquaBuOY 2.0

installed off the Oregon coast. Just hours

before completion of the test phase, the

device flooded and sank. The good news

is FERC issued a license to Finavera, in

January of 2008, for the installation of

four 250 kW WEC buoys, a 3.7-mile-long,

DC underwater transmission cable, a shore

station and a 12 kV transmission line to

connect the shore station to the existing

Clallam County Public Utility District

distribution line. The project is called theMakah Bay Offshore Wave Pilot Project

and is located off Washington State.

Most recently, Finavera has been issued

a preliminary permit from FERC for its

proposed 100MW Humboldt County,

California, wave energy project.

OPT has one PowerBuoy installed

offshore New Jersey and one off Kaneohe

Bay, Hawaii, adjacent to the Marine base.

A second PowerBuoy has been funded by

the U.S. Navys Office of Naval Research

(ONR) to continue the effort.

As mentioned above, Oceanlinx Lim-

ited and Pelamis Wave Power have planed

installations off Oregon, and an Irish com-

panyWavebobhas signed an agreement

with Chevron Technology Ventures (Hou-

ston, TX) to provide technical consulting

services with regard to the conversion of

wave energy into useful power.

Oceanlinx has very recently signed an

agreement to provide up to 2.7MW of

wave energy to Maui Electric Companyfrom 2-3 floating platforms located less

than a mile due north of Pauwela Point on

the northeast coast of Maui. The project,

to be completed by the end of 2009, is

estimated at $20 million and will be paid

for by Oceanlinx and its investors. This fol-

lows the signing of an agreement between

the U.S. DOE and the State of Hawaii,

establishing the Hawaii Clean Energy Ini-

tiative (HCEI), aimed at using renewable

energy and energy-efficient technologies to

supply 70% of its energy needs using clean

energy by 2030.

Tidal and Current PowerIn the U.S., tidal power is underway,

even though there are only a few sitesdeemed suitable for tidal projects. Alaska,

Washington, and Maine to Massachusetts

have excellent tidal resources, while local

areas such as San Francisco Bay could be

used as tidal power sources. Many short-

term tests have been completed, but to

date, only one long-term test has been

accomplished in the U.S.

Verdant Power claims to be the first tidal

energy device to be connected to the U.S.

grid and providing energy to an end-use

customer. The company has successfullyinstalled six Free Flow turbines in New

Yorks East River, along the eastern shore

of Roosevelt Island. The project, Roosevelt

Island Tidal Energy (RITE), has delivered

power to a supermarket and parking garage

as part of the demonstration. The turbines

were shut down after it was discovered that

the blades were not robust enough for the

more severe conditions. A redesign of the

blades solved the problem giving Verdant

valuable information for the next phase.

The project plan is to proceed from six

turbines to 100-300 turbines generating

up to 10 MW of power.

Florida Atlantic Universitys Center of

Excellence in Ocean Energy Technology,

and partners, plan to demonstrate the

power that can be generated long-term

from the current of the Florida Gulf Stream

using an open bladed turbine. The site will

be in 300 meters of water within the U.S.

Navys South Florida Testing Facility.

Maryland-based UEK Corporation hasbeen selected by the Nova Scotia govern-

ment to participate in the Bay of Fundy

Tidal Energy Project where it will deploy

a twin turbine unit in 2009. Two other

companies, one from Ireland and one from

Canada, will participate as well. The host

facility will be built at Minas Basin Pulp

and Power.


16/124


Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion(OTEC)

OTEC had a short-lived success in the

late 1970s and early 1980s, but the mil-

lions of dollars invested in OTEC research

quickly ended around 1982 when the price

of oil fell drastically.

With oil prices reaching the $100 per

barrel mark on January 2, 2008, OTECis again being looked at seriously. One

company with a great deal of OTEC

knowledge claims to be working on the

first full-scale, modern OTEC plant in the

U.S. The company will be working on the

detail design in 2008, but has not made a

formal announcement at this time. Other

companies have proposed full-scale OTEC

plants in areas such as Puerto Rico, the

Kwajalein Atoll, Diego Garcia, and Hawaii,

but no awards have yet to be made. This

also suggests that the first OTEC plants

may be built on military bases.

Offshore WindOffshore wind, it seemed, would be quick

to follow its land-based success in the U.S.

This quickly proved to be an incorrect as-

sumption. Offshore wind has been proposed

in many areas off the U.S. coastline, in places

like Texas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New

York, New Jersey and even in the Great Lakes.

However, none have yet to get strong support

and many seemed to be unwilling to begin

a fight like the one the Cape Wind project

off Nantucket Sound has been trying to win

for several years.

In February, 2007, Cape Wind filed its

Draft Environmental Impact Report with

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Previously, in November, 2004, the Corpsof Engineers issued a 3,800 page Draft

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)

on Cape Wind that found substantial

benefits and few impacts of the project.

An open public comment period ran until

February 24, 2005 and about 5,000 writ-

ten comments were submitted and four

public hearings occurred. The next stage

in the process will be the Final Environ-

mental Impact Statement. In May, 2005,

the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting

Board issued a permit for Cape Wind tointerconnect its electric cables with the elec-

tric transmission system in Massachusetts.

Other Massachusetts agencies are awaiting

the preparation and completion of the Final

Environmental Impact Review to complete

their reviews. If approved, the Cape Wind

Energy Project would be comprised of

130 wind turbine generators that could

generate a maximum electric output of

approximately 180 MW.

To date, no offshore wind farms exist

off any U.S. coasts and most planned in-

stallations have been abandoned, with the

exception of the Cape Wind project and a

proposed wind farm off Galveston, Texas.

Wind farms off Texas and Louisiana have

a couple of things going for them. State

waters extend 10 miles offshore, versus

three for the East and West coasts, and thesestates are accustomed to seeing structures

(oil & gas platforms) offshore.

Most believe that offshore wind is more

predictable and reliable than land-based

wind farms, and better matches the load

requirements of utilities.

The latest attempt has been made by

New Jersey, where Fishermans Energy of

New Jersey, LLC (FERN) has submitted a

proposal to the New Jersey Board of Public

Utilities to build a two-phase 350MW off-

shore wind energy facility off Cape May.At the same time, PSEG Renewable

Generation and Winergy Power Holdings

have submitted a proposal to the New Jer-

sey Office of Clean Energy (OCE) to build

a 350MW wind farm 16 miles off the shore

of South Jersey. The proposal shoots for a

2013 date to be fully operational.

The Future

Ocean Energy ultimately will be usedto supplement power to the grid, providing

clean, renewable and sustainable energy to

the world. How much is yet to be seen.

FIGURE 6

Offshore Wind Turbine Installation, courtesy of The

Engineering Business

FIGURE 5

Early concept of an OTEC plant, courtesy of Lock-

heed Martin Both DOE and EPRI have

stated that ocean energy has

the potential to meet 10%

of the U.S. demandthats

nearly 400 TWh/yr.

Each day the oceans ab-

sorb thermal energy (heat)

from the sun equal to the

thermal energy contained in250 billion barrels of oil.

One must wonder where

the world would be today if

it had long ago begun har-

nessing the largest sustain-

able energy source on the

planetits oceans.


17/124


TIntroduction he past several years have seen what

may be looked back upon as the greatest

expansion in remote sensing sensor capabil-

ity in the short history of our technology.

Whether you are a proponent of airborne or

satellite systems, each has benefited from an

increase in platforms, the introduction of

new and better sensor systems and greatly

improved ancillary equipment.

This commentary will attempt to ad-

dress many of these changes and to provide

information about the various sensors

and their capabilities. As the sensor suite

is constantly changing, please excuse any

omissions that may have been made.

Included with this review are two tables

that show current satellite systems and

airborne systems. Specific details on wave-

length, number of bands, spectral sensitiv-ity and so on are included. Additionally, the

tables show what specific applications these

sensors are thought best suited for.

BackgroundRemote sensing, as we know it today,

has been on the scene for only roughly 50-

60 years. The term remote sensingwas first

used by the U.S. military to describe a type

of aerial surveillance that went beyond the

use of photography into the use of parts ofthe electromagnetic spectrum other than

the visible, such as the infrared and the mi-

crowave parts (Morley, L.W., 1993. Remote

sensing then and now.Ottawa: CCRS).

The Geospatial Resource Portal de-

fines remote sensing as the science and

art of acquiring information (spectral,

spatial, temporal) about material objects,

A U T H O RHerbert Ripley, FRSPSoc

Hyperspectral Imaging Limited

C O M M E N T A R Y

area, or phenomenon, without coming

into physical contact with the objects, or

area, or phenomenon under investigation.Without direct contact, some means of

transferring information through space

must be utilized. In remote sensing, infor-

mation transfer is accomplished by use of

electromagnetic radiation (EMR). EMR is

a form of energy that reveals its presence

by the observable effects it produces when

it strikes the matter. EMR is considered

to span the spectrum of wavelengths from

10-10 mm to cosmic rays up to 1010 mm,

the broadcast wavelengths, which extend

from 0.30-15 mm.

Types of Energy Resources Passive Remote Sensing: Makes use

of sensors that detect the reflected

or emitted electro-magnetic radiation

from natural sources. Active remote Sensing: Makes use of

sensors that detect reflected responses

from objects that are irradiated from

artificially-generated energy sources,

such as radar.

Types of Wavelength RegionsRemote Sensing is classified into three

types of wavelength regions: Visible and Reflective Infrared Remote

Sensing Thermal Infrared Remote Sensing Microwave Remote Sensing

EvolutionAerial photography only first started

to be routinely used for spatial mapping

purposes during the 1930s. The need for

detailed information for military planning

purposes during WWII gave a major push

to the technology. A perfect example of

this is the development of infrared film as

a means to identify camouflaged military

vehicles. As we all know, the use of infrared

film and the basic technology has gone

on to become a backbone of modern day

remote sensing.The 1960s saw another major armed

military conflict, Vietnam. As so often

happens, another branch of airborne

remote sensing that had military roots,

thermal infrared imaging, became known

and started being used in civilian remote

sensing. In fact, there were many restricted

technologies in use by the U.S. military at

that time. The break came in 1963 when

the Environmental Research Institute of

Michigan obtained permission from the

U.S. Department of Defense to hold an

open conference on remote sensing. A

wide variety of both operational and ex-

perimental sensors, ranging from infrared

and multispectral scanners, to side-look-

ing radar and passive microwave imaging

devices, scatterometers and laser sensors,

were discussed (Morley, 1993).

The 1960s and 70s were an exciting

period that saw the conception, design and

deployment of our first earth observation

satellites. The move to satellite platformscreated a need to develop new sensors for

use on these satellites. These new sensors

resulted in a move away from analogue

technology and brought on the use of

digital technology for data capture and

storage. As is often the case when develop-

ing space-borne sensors, the systems are

first tested on airborne platforms, and this

serves to drive development in airborne

remote sensing as well.

Computing PowerThe development of remote sensing

has been very closely linked to the develop-

ment of computer systems and also to the

development of data recording technology.

As recently as twenty years ago we were still

using mini computers and 9 track tape drives

on aircraft platforms to capture and record

Remote SensingState of the Art


18/124


19/124


20/124


TABLE 2 AQUATIC FEATURES FROM AIRCRAFT (see page 19 for Glossary and Websites)


21/124


Active SystemsLidar

Perhaps one of the greatest jumps has

taken place in both the capability and use of

lidar systems. In a very few years terrestrial

lidar systems have increased significantly

in power. This jump in power has had a

resulting major improvement in the cloud

of data points that the sensors can acquire

and this, in turn, translates into much more

accurate terrain measurements. Coinciden-

tal with this increased capability has been a

marked increase in the number of users of

the technology and in the number of service

providers. Marine lidar systems have also

made significant technical advancements in

the past few years. More systems are avail-

able and more and more projects are being

undertaken with these systems.

RadarRadar systems continue to hold a

strong position in the remote sensing field.Airborne radar use has had a long history,

dating back over forty years. Sensor systems

have improved greatly over that period

and have become much more powerful

and capable of providing better and better

resolutions. Satellite systems also have made

major inroads over the past decade. Radarsat

I and ERS-2 both have proven that space-

borne radars have many uses. The launch of

Radarsat II in 2006 brought significant new

capabilities to this emerging sector.

Spatial AccuracyComplementing the advancements

made in the spectral and spatial characteris-

tics of modern day sensor systems has been

the remarkable improvement in the ability

to obtain very high x,y spatial mapping ac-

curacies. GPS systems have been available

in the airborne remote sensing sector for

approaching twenty years. Over this pe-

riod they have improved in capability and

dropped significantly in cost. Modern day

GPS systems and the advanced processing

software make it possible to record centim-

eter or better positional accuracy.

However, simply having a high-end GPS

on an aircraft does not translate into very

good x,y accuracies. The difficulty lies in the

fact that aircraft are constantly in motion

along three primary axes. So as imagery is be-

ing recorded, this variable movement creates

distortions in the image data, which translates

into large errors in positional accuracy.About fifteen years ago, the first Inertial

Measurement Units (IMUs) were placed

on aircraft in order to measure this aircraft

motion. IMUs are military technology that

has moved over into the civilian sector and

these three axis systems measure aircraft

motion very accurately and very rapidly.

The use of IMUs in airborne data collection

WEB SITES1. www.invap.com.ar/sacc.html2. www.spotimage.fr3. landsat7.usgs.gov4. eo1.gsfc.nasa.gov5. newswire.spaceimaging.com6. www.digitalglobe.com7. www.isro.org/irsp4.htm8. kompsat.kari.re.kr/english/index.asp9. modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/10. oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaWiFS/11. envisat.esa.int12. poes2.gsfc.nasa.gov13. earth.esa.int/eeo-4.8014. trmm.gsfc.nasa.gov/overview_dir/tmi.html15. www.ngdc.noaa.gov/dmsp/sensors/ssmi.html16. www.spotimage.fr17. landsat7.usgs.gov18. eo1.gsfc.nasa.gov19. newswire.spaceimaging.com20. www.digitalglobe.com21. www.isro.org/irsp4.htm22. kompsat.kari.re.kr/english/index.a

GLOSSARYALI Advanced Land ImagerDOM Dissolved Organic MatterETM+ Enhanced Thematic MapperHRG High Resolution GeomaticKOMPSAT Korean Multi Purpose SatelliteLANDSAT Land Remote Sensing SatelliteMERIS Medium Resolution Imaging SpectrometerMMIR Multispectral Medium Resolution ScannerMODIS Moderate Resolution Imaging SpectrometerOCM Ocean Color MonitorOSMI Ocean Scanning Multispectral ImagerSEAWIFS Sea Viewing Wide Field of View SensorSPOT Satellite pour lObservation

de la Terre

AQUATIC FEATURES FROM SATELLITESTABLE 1

GLOSSARY

AAHIS2 Advanced Air Hyperspectral Imaging

System 2

AISA Airborne Imaging Spectrometer

for Applications

AVIRIS Airborne Visible Infrared Imaging

Spectrometer

CASI Compact Airborne Spectrographic Imager

DFI Dual-mode Fluorescence Imager

DMSV Digital Multi Spectral Video

SASI Hyperspectral SWIR Imaging System

ThAAIS Thermal Infrared Imaging SystemTASI Hyperspectral Thermal Sensor System

ALTM Airborne Laser Terrain Mapper

LADS MKII Laser Airborne Depth Sounder

SHOALS Scanning Hydrographic Operational

Airborne Lidar Survey

ESTAR Electronically Scanned Thinned Array

Radiometer

PALS Passive/Active L/S-band dual-polarized

sensor

SLFMR Scanning Low Frequency Microwave

Radiometer

EMISAR Electromagnetics Institute Synthetic

Aperture Radar

TOPSAR Topographic Synthetic Aperture Radar

WEB SITES

1. www.specim.fi/media/pdf/aisa-datasheets/

eagle_datasheet_ver2-07.pdf

2. www.specim.fi/media/pdf/aisa-datasheets/

hawk_datasheet_ver1-07.pdf

3. aviris.jpl.nasa.gov/html/aviris.overview.html

4. www.itres.com/docs/casiinfo.html

5. www.sti-hawaii.com/dfi.shtml

6. www.oceani.com/oidmsv.htm

7. www.hyvista.com/hymap.html

8. www.earthsearch.com/technology/frame_

about_probe1.html9. www.gs.flir.com/products/airborne/starsafireiii.cfm

10. 216.208.29.141/prodaltm.htm

11. www.vsl.com.au/lads

12. http://shoals.sam.usace.army.mil

13. www.gsfc.nasa.gov

14. www.jpl.nasa.gov

15. www.emi.dtu.dk/research/DCRS/Emisar/

emisar.html

16. southport.jpl.nasa.gov/topsardesc.html

AQUATIC FEATURES FROM AIRCRAFTTABLE 2


22/124


was initially slowed by the high cost of the

early IMU systems. In recent years these

costs have dropped considerably and most

airborne systems now employ IMUs. The

advent of IMUs has meant that x,y spatial

accuracies that were measured previously

with 3050 meter errors have dropped to

the order of 1-3 meter errors.

SummaryThe opportunity to obtain highly special-

ized remote sensing data, whether from air-

borne or spaceborne sources, has never been

better. The variety of sensor systems available

for use and their powerful capabilities mean

more specialized applications are being devel-

oped and employed in operational use. The

future is bright as a significant number of new

systems and satellites are being planned and

will soon be in operation.


23/124


CIntroduction hanges in ship technology have been

slow to evolve. Commercial boat and

ship designs have advanced over time by

adapting to local conditions and trading

requirements. Ships, as instruments of war,

made a major change when the British ad-

vanced the concept of fighting at sea from

the movement of fortified castles, such as

the Spanish Armada, to instruments of

battle capable of rapid maneuvering. New

designs followed resulting in hull and sail

improvements. The introduction of the

steam engine again caused a major shift

in propulsion-related design. This proved

to cause a change in geopolitical postur-

ing as countries needed to secure coaling

stations worldwide to support ocean trade

and colonization. The ironclad added yet

another factor to ship design. Ships became

heavier and more lethal. However dramaticthe changes seemed at the time, they were

mostly adapting to changing conditions

and not to significant shifts in design.

A U T H O RJohn F. Bash

Executive Director

Hydrogen Energy Center of Maine

P A P E R

New Ship Technology and DesignA B S T R A C T

The ship building industry is experiencing a wave of new ship technology and design.

Historically, ship design has been slow to change. For example, the mono-hull design has

been around for centuries. Propulsion has evolved as technology advanced but we see shipowners as very conservative in embracing new advances. In the past 20 years this trend has

shifted as new designs begin to appear. This article explores some of these changes and

the drivers that are causing this shift. Clearly, as technology advances and uses for ships

expand, the ship building industry design is evolving. New issues have come to the fore

and have accelerated the design change. These drivers include fuel costs, reduced crewing,

speed, security issues, pollution regulations, stealth needs, human factors, safety, geopolitical

changes, multi-mission requirements, and acoustic quietness. Examples of military, com-

mercial, and research ships are discussed.

Catamaran/Swath DesignsThe catamaran design has been around

for hundreds of years in the Pacific. In the

latter half of the 20thcentury, power was

added allowing for a faster and more sta-

ble platform. The Small Waterplane Area

Thin Hull (SWATH) design grew out of

this in the 1970s. Both the catamaran and

SWATH concept are used for high-speed

ferries and other applications requiring

both speed and comfort. Ever larger ships

of this design are being built.

In 2005, the U.S. Navy christened a

262-foot Catamaran, Littoral Surface Craft(Figure 1) referred to as the X-Craft Sea

Fighter (FSF-1). This ship can operate in

shallow water and is capable of 50 knots

with a full payload. It is powered by two

MTU diesel engines and two LM2500 gas

turbines. The huge deck allows for helicop-

ter operation and the huge cargo bay allows

for a dozen 20-foot mission modules. It

will be operated with a miniscule crew,

by navy standards, of 26. Missions antici-

pated include: battle force protection, mine

countermeasures, anti-submarine warfare,

amphibious assault support, and assistance

with humanitarian aid. The ship is essen-

tially an empty box until mission-specific

vans are placed aboard. This design reflects

several drivers including speed, multi-mission, reduced crewing, ride comfort

(human factor), and that it is required to

operate in relatively shallow waters.

FIGURE 1

The U.S. Navys X-Craft, Sea Fighter (FSF-1), underway outside the Port of Everett.

Photo by Photographers Mate 3rd Class Rachel Bonilla.

FIGURE 2

WAM-V


24/124


A radical takeoff from this design has

been developed. The designation given to

this new ship is Wave Adaptive Modular

Vessel or WAM-V (Figure 2). This ex-

perimental spider-like craft is an ultra-light

flexible catamaran modularly designed toallow for multi-missions and projects. The

supporting pontoons are capable of moving

in relation to one another. They are outfitted

with springs, shock absorbers, and ball joints

to allow articulation of the vessel, which

results in a mitigation of stress to the struc-

ture, payload, and crew. Two engine pods,

containing the propulsion and ancillary

systems, are secured to the hull with special

hinges that keep the propellers in the water

at all times. The modularity of this ship

allows for different payloads and missions.The ship has a range of 5,000 miles, very

low fuel consumption, shallow draft, and

minimal wake even at high speedswith

the soft hull technology, an environmentally

friendly bonus. It will be interesting to see if

this radical design can attract a market.

Research vessels have been venturing

into the catamaran and SWATH design

concept. The University of Miami placed

F. G. Walton Smith (Figure 3) into service

in 2000. This catamaran design allows for a

shallow draft of 5 ft to accommodate theoceanographic research missions of South-

ern Florida waters, a large operation plat-

form, and a generous 800 sq. ft. laboratory

for its 96foot length. The design provides

a stable ride and the ability to accommodate

20 persons on scientific missions.

The University of Hawaii selected a

SWATH design for their newest research

vessel, RV Kilo Moana (Figure 4). This

world-ranging ship is 185 feet long and dis-

places over 2500 tons. A stabilized working

environment for rough sea oceanographicoperations is a major plus for this ship. The

ship can remain at sea for 50 days, operate at a

maximum speed of 15 knots and carry a large

scientific party of 28 with a crew of 20. The

large deck and laboratories allow for multi-

mission operations for this versatile ship

Acoustic DriversWhile the catamaran and SWATH

designs satisfy the missions for the Uni-

versities of Miami and Hawaii, other ship

characteristics have driven research vessel

designs. The University of Delaware wasinterested in the acoustic profile of its new

ship Hugh R. Sharp (Figure 5). Scientific

missions are depending more on acoustic

equipment to sample the ocean and noisy

ship hull and propulsion systems inhibit the

operation of these sensitive instruments.

Sharp was built to operate quietly following

the International Convention for Explora-

tion of the Seas (ICES) standards.

The National Oceanic & Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) has recently

commissioned three fishery research shipswith superior acoustic characteristics and

a fourth ship is under construction and

scheduled for delivery in 2009. The first

three ships: Oscar Dyson, Henry Bigelow

(Figure 6), and Pisces were designed to

meet the tough ICES standards. This

FIGURE 4

Kilo Moana

FIGURE 3

F.G. Walton Smith

FIGURE 6

Henry Bigelow

FIGURE 5

Hugh R. Sharp. Photo courtesy of University of Delaware College of Marine and

Earth Studies.


25/124


opens a new window for fisheries research,

permitting t

marine technology society journal - the state of technology in 2008

Documents